Structures 34 (2021) 3141–3154

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/structures

Damage evaluation and performance-based design of double-pier RC bridge

subjected to vehicle collision
R.W. Li a, H. Wu b, *, Q. Fang b, D.F. Wang a
a
School of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Xi’an University of Technology, Xi’an 710048, China
b
Department of Disaster Mitigation for Structures, College of Civil Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Vehicle collision on reinforced concrete bridge pier (RCBP) frequently occurred all over the world in the past two
Performance-based design decades, posing a potential threat to safety of the bridge. However, the impact-resistant design of RCBP in
Double-pier bridge current regulations is only based on the equivalent static force of vehicle impact without considering the damage-
Vehicle collision
performance correlation of the impacted RCBP. This study aims to establish the performance-based design
Reinforced concrete
Numerical simulation
procedure for the typical double-pier RC bridge against vehicle collision. By adopting the refined finite element
models of light, medium and heavy trucks with the weight ranging from 3 to 50 t and impact velocity varying
from 40 to 120 km/h, 54 numerical simulations of collision scenarios are carried out based on the validated
numerical algorithm and material constitutive models. It derives that: (i) the dominated factor that evaluates
whether RCBP fails or not under vehicle collision is the peak dynamic shear demand at the base of the RCBP, and
related explicit expressions of the peak dynamic shear demand and capacity are further developed and verified;
(ii) a new damage index, i.e., the ratio of peak dynamic shear demand to the dynamic shear capacity, is defined
to evaluate different damage levels of the RCBP under vehicle collision; (iii) damage-performance correlation of
the impacted RCBP is also established, e.g., the bridge is prone to collapse under vehicle collision once damage
index exceeds 1.2. Finally, by proposing the impact-resistant performance objectives, the detailed performance-
based design procedure is developed according to the importance level of roadway.

1. Introduction
Bridge piers are commonly made of Reinforced Concrete columns to
provide the vertical resistance supporting the superstructure. In the past
decades, a number of natural and human-induced hazards occurred to
reinforced concrete bridge piers (RCBP), e.g., earthquake [1,2] and
vehicle collision [3–5]. Compared with earthquake, collisions from
heavy or high-velocity trucks usually caused severe damage to the RCBP,
further triggering total collapse of the bridge and endangering human
lives, e.g., collision accidents in Corsicana, Mount Pleasant [4] and
Chenzhou [5] (see Fig. 1), respectively. However, seismic performance,
retrofitting approach and design method of the RCBP were extensively
studied [1,2], while systemic research on the impact-resistant perfor­
mance of the RCBP was insufficient. Therefore, it is needed to investi­
gate the dynamic behavior, damage and failure mode of the vehicular
impacted RCBP, and further establish the performance-based impact-
resistant design approach.
In the public domain, existing design codes and standards [6–9]
commonly use the equivalent static force (ESF) to define the vehicle
impact force. For instance, SA/SNZ [6] recommended a simple equation
to predict the vehicular impact force, where vehicle impact energy,
vehicle plastic deformation and column displacement at the impact
position were considered. CEN [7] distinguished the soft and hard im­
pacts, in which the impacted object (RCBP) absorbed a large amount of
impact energy was defined as the soft impact, while the impact energy
mostly dissipated by the impacting object (vehicle) was classified as the
hard impact. EI-Tawil et al. [10] pointed out that the ESF in AASHTO-
LRFD 2nd edition [11] was not conservative. Then, AASHTO-LRFD 6th
edition [8] increased the value of ESF from 1800 kN to 2670 kN based on
the collision test conducted by Buth et al. [2]. Besides, according to CEN
[7], JTG D60-2015 [9] stipulated a nominal value of vehicle impact
force, i.e., 1000 kN and 500 kN along the driving and vertical driving
directions, respectively.
Performance-based design has been widely used in earthquake en­
gineering and has been proved to be the excellent design concept, while
the corresponding work in impact engineering is limited, especially for

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: wuhaocivil@tongji.edu.cn (H. Wu).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2021.09.083
Received 30 November 2020; Received in revised form 6 August 2021; Accepted 21 September 2021
Available online 4 October 2021
2352-0124/© 2021 Institution of Structural Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
R.W. Li et al.
the RCBP subjected to vehicle collision. Currently, related studies
mainly focused on the impact resistance of single-pier against the me­
dium truck collision. Sharma et al. [12,13] developed the framework to
estimate dynamic shear capacity of and demand on the RCBP under
vehicle collision, and further proposed a set of the impact-resistant
performance objectives corresponding to different vehicle impact
loads. However, they did not explicitly model dynamic characteristics of
the impact issue, instead, utilized the simply assumptions about dy­
namic behavior of the RCBP. Auyeung et al. [14] proposed the
performance-based design approach for RCBP against vehicle collision
by using a quantitative index, where a ratio of the vehicle kinetic energy
to the product of dynamic shear capacity and diameter of RCBP. How­
ever, energy dissipation capacity of the vehicle itself was neglected,
thereby the proposed DRI could overestimate damage level of the RCBP
under vehicular collision. Do et al. [15] recommended the design pro­
cedure for RCBP to resist vehicle collision, in which bending and shear
failure governed the response of the impacted RCBP were both consid­
ered. Nevertheless, quantitative damage level and importance level of
the roadway were yet not considered.
Generally, existing studies still have the following limitations: (i)
only the ESF of vehicle impact is concerned in current regulations, while
damage-performance correlation of the impacted RCBP is neglected; (ii)
collected collision accidents [4,5] showed that damaged and collapsed
bridges are mainly double-pier bridges. However, impact resistance of
the single-pier is primarily addressed in existing work, and the corre­
sponding studies concerning the double-pier are insufficient and needed;
(iii) systematic studies on the dynamic response as well as the damage
and failure of the RCBP under various vehicular weights and impacting
velocities are limited, especially for the light and heavy trucks; (iv)
damage index is beneficial to evaluate different damage level of the
impacted RCBP, while an explicit damage index with considering the
strain rate and inertial effects of the impacted RCBP is lack; (v) estab­
lishment of the performance-based impact-resistant design approach
should both consider the performance objectives and importance level
of the roadway, while existing work is relatively insufficient.
At present, aiming to establish a performance-based design approach
with considering different vehicular collision conditions, firstly, the
refined finite element (FE) models of vehicles colliding with the typical
double-pier RC bridge are developed by using LS-DYNA [16], in which
light, medium and heavy trucks are employed. Then, the adopted nu­
merical algorithm, material constitutive models and inputting parame­
ters are validated by comparing with a model collision test.
Furthermore, according to 54 numerical simulations of collision sce­
narios, dynamic response, damage and failure of the impacted RCBP are
systematically assessed, and the corresponding damage level is further
evaluated by proposing a damage index. Finally, based on the impor­
tance level and impact-resistant performance objectives of the roadway,
detailed performance-based design procedure is proposed. Present work
Fig. 1. Collision accidents with RCBP [4,5] (a) Corsicana in 2003 (b) Mount Pleasant in 2008 (c) Chenzhou in 2009.
3142
Structures 34 (2021) 3141–3154
can provide helpful references for the design, evaluation and retrofit of
the RCBP under potential vehicle collision.
2. Numerical simulation of vehicle colliding with double-pier
bridge
2.1. FE model of double-pier bridge
FE model of a typical prototype double-pier bridge is established by
using LS-DYNA [16]. As seen in Fig. 2, the bridge consists of two foot­
ings, two bridge columns, a bent cap, a bridge deck and six rubber
bearings. The RCBPs have the diameter of 1070 mm (D) in circular cross-
section and 4000 mm in height (H), which are reinforced by ten 36 mm-
diameter longitudinal bars extending from the footing to the bent cap
and 16 mm-diameter transverse bars at 300 mm spacing according to
earthquake intensity 8 following CJJ 166-2011 [17]. The longitudinal
bar and transversal volumetric ratios are 1.13% and 5.20‰, respec­
tively. The bent cap has the span length of 6800 mm. Cube compressive
strength (fc ) of concrete in the RCBPs, bent cap and footings are 28 MPa,
and yield stresses of the longitudinal and transverse bars are 414 MPa.
According to JTG D60-2015 [9], weight of the bridge deck is set as 10%
of the vertical compressive capacity of the two RCBPs, transmitting to
the RCBPs through the bent cap and rubber bearings. During numerical
simulations, the footings, RCBPs, bent cap and rubber bearings are
modeled by using solid element, the steel bars are simulated by using
beam element, as well as the bridge deck is simulated by employing shell
element to improve the computational efficiency. Mesh convergence
analyses show that the numerical results can converge when the element
sizes are 50 mm, and thereby the total number of elements in the present
model is 262444.
Concrete, steel and rubber bearings are modelled by *MAT_CON­
CRETE_DAMAGE_REL3 [16], *MAT_PLASTIC_KINEMATIC [16] and
*MAT_ELASTIC [16], respectively. Moreover, *CONSTRAINED_
LAGRANGE_IN_SOLID [16] is adopted to define interfacial interaction
between the concrete and steel bars, since previous studies
[12–15,18–20] have shown that the concrete and surrounding steel bars
can be assumed as perfectly bonded under low-impact loading. Two
keywords *LOAD_BODY_Z [16] and *CONTROL_DYNAMIC_ RELAXA­
TION [16] are employed to apply the gravity loads. Besides, *CON­
TACT_AUTOMATIC_SURFACE_ TO_SURFACE [16] is used to simulate
collision interaction between the vehicle and RCBP, and the dynamic
and static friction coefficients are both set as 0.3 according to the
repeated trials and previous study [20,21].
2.2. Validation of material constitutive models and numerical algorithm
2.2.1. Model collision test
Aiming to validate the adopted numerical algorithm, material
R.W. Li et al. Structures 34 (2021) 3141–3154

Fig. 2. FE model of prototype double-pier RC bridge.

constitutive models and inputting parameters, model collision test input the unconfined compressive strength of concrete while the cor­
conducted by Demartino et al. [22] is adopted to perform the pre­ responding constitutive parameters can be automatically generated
liminary numerical simulations. Schematic view and design parameters [16,23]. Moreover, the compressive and tensile dynamic increase fac­
of the overall collision test are shown in Fig. 3(a-c), in which the spec­ tors proposed by Malvar and Crawford [24] are utilized to reflect strain-
imen consists of a RC base with the dimensions of 900 × 900 × 500 mm3 rate effect on the dynamic increase in concrete material strength, i.e.,
and a circular sectional RC column with the diameter of 330 mm and the ⎧
height of 1700 mm. Cube compressive strength of concrete is 28 MPa, ⎨
(ε̇/ε̇cs )1.026αs if ε̇⩽30 s− 1
fcd /fcs = (1)
and yield stress of the longitudinal and transverse bars are 427 MPa and ⎩ γ s (ε̇/ε̇cs )1/3 if ε̇ > 30 s− 1
416 MPa, respectively. Four prestressed bolts are used to connect the RC
base with rigid ground of the laboratory, and six displacement sensors ⎧
⎨
are attached along the column height to measure the lateral displace­ ftd /fts =
(ε̇/ε̇ts )δs if ε̇ ⩽1 s− 1
(2)
ment at different heights during collision process. In the collision test, a ⎩ βs (ε̇/ε̇ts )1/3 if ε̇ < 1 s− 1

simplified truck model, made from Chinese mild steel Q235 (1.58 t at
weight), is used to hit the base of the specimen (with a height of 400
mm) with the impact velocity of 4.5 m/s. More information on this
collision test can be available in Demartino et al. [22].
2.2.2. FE model of collision test
As seen in Fig. 3(d), FE model of the collision test is also established
by using LS-DYNA, in which the numerical algorithm and material
constitutive models used in the double-pier RC bridge model are also
employed. To accurately predict impact process and results, boundary
condition and impact location of the numerical model are set exactly the
same as those of the test. The total element number of this model is
220998.
2.2.3. Material constitutive models
(1) Concrete
where fcd and fcs are the dynamic and static compressive strength of
concrete, respectively (MPa); ftd and fts are the dynamic and static tensile
strengths of concrete, respectively (MPa); ε̇cs = 30 × 10− 6 s− 1 and
ε̇ts = 1 × 10− 6 s− 1 are the reference strain rates; αs = 1/(5 + 0.9fcs ); log
γ s = 6.156αs − 2; δs = 1/(1 + 0.8fcs ); logβs = 6δs − 2.
(2) Reinforcing bars and test vehicle
*MAT_PLASTIC_KINEMATIC is employed to describe the longitudi­
nal and transverse bars as well as the tested vehicle, in which the Von-
Mises yield criterion is adopted [16]. Strain-rate effect on the dynamic
strength of the steel is considered by the Cowper and Symonds model
[16], i.e.,
ε 1
δy = [1 + ( ) /p ](σ0 + βEp εeff ) (3)
C

where σ 0 is the initial quasi-static yield stress of steel; εeff is the equiv­
*MAT_CONCRETE_DAMAGE_REL3 is selected to model concrete
alent plastic strain of steel; Ep is the plastic hardening modulus of steel
material, in which plasticity, damage accumulation, and strain-rate ef­
(N/mm2); β is the hardening parameter; ε is the strain rate of steel; the
fect of concrete are all taken into account. For this model, only need to

Fig. 3. Experimental and numerical specimen of RC column (a) schematic view (b) photograph [20] (c) design parameters (unit: mm) (d) FE model.

3143
R.W. Li et al.
strain-rate effect parameters of C and P are set as 40.4 and 5 [25].
2.2.4. Validation
Numerical results are compared with the experimental results in
terms of the dynamic response and impact process. As shown in Fig. 4
(a), the simulated impact force agrees well with that derived from the
test, where the deviation in the peak value is merely 6%. Moreover, as
presented in Fig. 4(b), the numerical simulations show a great prediction
of deformation of the RC column, in which the maximum values at the
impact location from the experimental data are 27.1 mm, compared to
26.5 mm from the FE model. Besides, Table 1 further shows comparisons
of the experimental and numerically simulated instantaneous damage of
the RC column. It can be seen that crack distribution pattern and final
failure mode of the RC column in the test are well reflected by the nu­
merical model. Therefore, a conclusion can be drawn that, the present
numerical simulations can yield reliable predictions of dynamic
response and damage process of the RC column under lateral impact
loading.
2.3. FE models of vehicles
For better understanding different damage levels of the RCBP under
various vehicle collisions, three typical vehicles, i.e., light truck (pick-up
truck), medium truck (Ford 800 truck) and heavy truck (trailer truck),
are employed to conduct the present numerical simulations (see Fig. 5).
These three truck models have been validated by National Crash Anal­
ysis Centre and Li et al. [26], respectively. Basic information of the
above three typical vehicle models is tabulated in Table 2. The engine
weights of them are 0.34 t, 0.87 t, and 1.52 t, and the corresponding full
weight can be adjusted by changing the cargo weight. In the current
work, light truck is empty without loading any cargo, and its full weight
is 3 t. Comparatively, full weights of the medium truck are 10 t and 15 t,
and the corresponding full weights of the heavy truck are 30 t, 40 t and
50 t, respectively.
2.4. Collision scenarios
A total of 54 collision scenarios are designed (see Fig. 6) for the
systematical analysis on vehicle-RCBP collision, which are classified into
six series I ~ VI. Table 3 gives the detailed parameters of each collision
scenarios, where m0 is the mass of vehicle (t), including the engine and
P
cargo masses; v0 is the impact velocity of vehicle (km/h); Fveh is the peak
P
dynamic vehicle collision force (kN); Vdsd is the peak dynamic shear
demand at the base of the RCBP (kN), i.e., the peak dynamic shear
response at the base of the RCBP, which can be obtained from Eq. (4);
Fig. 4. Experimental and numerically simulated dynamic response of RC column (a) impact force–time history (b) instantaneous lateral displacement at
different heights.
3144
Structures 34 (2021) 3141–3154
M
Vdsc is the maximum dynamic shear capacity of RCBP (kN), which can be
obtained from Eq. (13); λD is the damage index, from Eq. (15); Di is the
damage level of the impacted RCBP, which is classified and descripted in
Section 3.2. Each collision scenario is numbered as follows for the ease
of reference, e.g., L-M3-V60 notifies that the RCBP is subjected to the
impact of light truck with mass of 3 t and impact velocity of 60 km/h.
2.5. Numerical simulations
Since damage and failure mode of the RCBPs in all collision scenarios
are nearly identical (see Figs. 7 and 8), i.e., shear failure, five typical
collision scenarios of L-M3-V100, M− M10− V80, M− M15− V100, H-
M30-V60 and H-M50-V110 are taken as example for the detailed anal­
ysis. It should be noted that the keyword *DATABASE_CROSS_SECTION
[16] is used in this study to obtain the dynamic shear demand at the base
P
of the RCBP (Vdsd ), and the corresponding results are given in Table 3.
2.5.1. Dynamic response
Fig. 9 shows time histories of the vehicle impact force, lateral
displacement at the impact position and dynamic shear demand for the
above five collision scenarios, respectively. It can be derived that: (i) for
the case of light truck collision (see Fig. 9(a)), only two peak values
caused by the bumper and engine impacts appear on the impact force
(black solid line) and dynamic shear demand (orange dotted line) time
histories, since no cargo is loaded in the light truck; (ii) for the cases of
medium and heavy trucks collisions (see Fig. 9(b-e)), three peak values
exist on the impact force and dynamic shear demand time histories,
which are induced by the successive impact of the bumper, engine and
cargo, respectively; (iii) as illustrated in Fig. 7(b), 8(b), 9(c) and 9(e), the
dynamic shear demand reaches the peak value when the engine
impacting on RCBP, and the induced damage and shear failure is
concentrated at the impact location. Hence, owing to the large rigidity of
the engine and certain mass, the engine impact is the dominated factor
resulting in shear failure for this type of RCBP. After that, the cargo
impact exacerbates damage and deformation of the RCBP due to its large
impact impulse (see Fig. 7(c) and 8(c)). As a result, the engine impact is
the key to RCBP failure during vehicular collision process; (iv) Buth et al.
[4] and Chen et al. [27] pointed out that the cargo impact force was
greater than the engine impact force based on the analysis of vehicle
colliding with rigid and elastic column, which is different with the
present conclusions, i.e., the cargo impact force is less than the engine
impact force. The main reason lies in that the RCBP suffers severe
damage and even fails due to the engine impact in the current work,
which causes the severe deterioration of RCBP’s stiffness and strength,
and further results in a lower cargo impact force; (v) due to the inertia
R.W. Li et al. Structures 34 (2021) 3141–3154

Table 1
Experimental and numerically simulated instantaneous damage and failure mode of RC column.
Time (ms) 2.5 5 7.5 10 15 20 25 30 40

Test [22]

Numericalsimulation

Fig. 5. Vehicle models (a) light truck (pick-up truck) (b) medium truck (Ford 800 truck) (c) heavy truck (trailer truck).

2.5.2. Damage and failure

Table 2 M
Fig. 9 also gives dynamic shear capacity (Vdsc ) and final damage state
Detailed information about three vehicle models. M
of the impacted RCBP, where Vdsc is also given in Table 3. It can be noted
Vehicle Length Width Engine Full-load Total
that, in the cases of L-M3-V100, M− M10− V80 and H-M30-V60, RCBP
model (m) (m) weight (t) weight (t) elements
does not fail but suffers a certain damage at the impact location,
Light truck 5.9 2 0.34 3 723,329
although the peak vehicle impact force exceeds the dynamic shear ca­
Medium 8.5 2.4 0.87 15 41,255
truck
pacity. It is attributed to that portion of the vehicle impact force is
Heavy 19.5 2.4 1.52 50 86,721 counterbalanced by the inertia force, and partial vehicle impact energy
truck is absorbed by plastic deformation of the vehicle itself during the
collision process, which results in the peak dynamic shear demand is less
than the dynamic shear capacity, i.e., RCBP does not fail when subjected
effect, dynamic response of the impacted RCBP require a certain time
to vehicle collision. However, in the cases of M− M15− V100 and H-M50-
period, and thus the displacement response lags behind variation of the
V110, RCBP sustains shear failure at the impact position, when the peak
impact force and dynamic shear demand; (vi) for the RCBP that is not
dynamic shear demand equals the dynamic shear capacity. Although
failed (see Fig. 9(a, b and d)), , the lateral displacement has a certain
flexural damage and cracks occur, they make minor contribution to
degree of recovery owing to resilience of the longitudinal bars, the
failure of the impacted RCBP. Therefore, it can be drawn that, the peak
declining impact force and inertia force, which is useful to maintain the
dynamic shear demand is the dominated factor to evaluate whether
stability of cracking RCBP.
RCBP fails or not under vehicle collision.

Fig. 6. FE models of vehicle collisions with RCBP (a) light truck (b) medium truck (c) heavy truck.

3145
R.W. Li et al. Structures 34 (2021) 3141–3154

Table 3
Detailed impact parameters of each collision scenario.
Label m0 v0 P
Fveh P
Vdsd M
Vdsc λD Di
Numerical simulation Eq. (14) Average error

Series-I L-M3-V40 3 40 708 713 7199 0.08 0.15 2.3% D1

L-M3-V50 50 1910 1193 0.21 0.25 D1
L-M3-V60 60 2800 2539 0.30 0.36 D1
L-M3-V70 70 3866 3366 0.42 0.46 D2
L-M3-V80 80 5524 4531 0.60 0.57 D2
L-M3-V90 90 6306 5149 0.68 0.67 D2
L-M3-V100 100 7633 6165 0.83 0.78 D2
L-M3-V110 110 8412 6725 0.91 0.88 D2
L-M3-V120 120 9189 7175 1.00 0.99 D2
Series-II M− M10− V40 10 40 1574 1547 7199 0.17 0.16 D1
M− M10− V50 50 2052 2010 0.22 0.27 D1
M− M10− V60 60 2737 2414 0.30 0.39 D1
M− M10− V70 70 4352 3593 0.47 0.54 D2
M− M10− V80 80 7365 5703 0.80 0.70 D2
M− M10− V90 90 9719 6482 1.05 0.87 D3
M− M10− V100 100 11,554 7178 1.25 1.07 D3
M− M10− V110 110 12,585 6903 1.36 1.29 D4
M− M10− V120 120 14,375 6931 1.56 1.52 D4
Series-III M− M15− V40 15 40 1590 1570 7199 0.17 0.18 D1
M− M15− V50 50 1916 1846 0.21 0.30 D1
M− M15− V60 60 2816 2510 0.31 0.44 D1
M− M15− V70 70 4681 3849 0.51 0.60 D2
M− M15− V80 80 6974 5757 0.76 0.77 D2
M− M15− V90 90 10,062 6526 1.09 0.97 D3
M− M15− V100 100 11,627 6972 1.26 1.19 D4
M− M15− V110 110 12,345 6987 1.34 1.43 D4
M− M15− V120 120 17,700 6964 1.92 1.78 D4
Series-IV H-M30-V40 30 40 2276 2579 7199 0.25 0.23 D1
H-M30-V50 50 5413 4003 0.59 0.51 D2
H-M30-V60 60 8313 5976 0.90 0.78 D2
H-M30-V70 70 10,568 6530 1.15 1.04 D3
H-M30-V80 80 12,624 7025 1.37 1.28 D4
H-M30-V90 90 16,986 7254 1.84 1.51 D4
H-M30-V100 100 18,632 7205 2.02 1.72 D4
H-M30-V110 110 21,988 7078 2.38 1.92 D4
H-M30-V120 120 21,923 7923 2.38 2.11 D4
Series-V H-M40-V40 40 40 2957 2559 7199 0.32 0.30 D1
H-M40-V50 50 5589 4240 0.61 0.60 D2
H-M40-V60 60 7921 5781 0.86 0.88 D2
H-M40-V70 70 10,523 6719 1.14 1.14 D3
H-M40-V80 80 13,129 6914 1.42 1.39 D4
H-M40-V90 90 16,331 7451 1.77 1.63 D4
H-M40-V100 100 19,088 7537 2.07 1.85 D4
H-M40-V110 110 21,988 7268 2.38 2.05 D4
H-M40-V120 120 21,994 7199 2.38 2.24 D4
Series-VI H-M50-V40 50 40 2906 2695 7199 0.31 0.37 D1
H-M50-V50 50 4888 3697 0.53 0.68 D2
H-M50-V60 60 7582 5692 0.82 0.97 D2
H-M50-V70 70 10,455 6426 1.13 1.25 D3
H-M50-V80 80 13,283 7253 1.44 1.50 D4
H-M50-V90 90 16,467 7552 1.78 1.74 D4
H-M50-V100 100 19,255 7502 2.09 1.97 D4
H-M50-V110 110 21,428 7148 2.32 2.18 D4
H-M50-V120 120 22,325 7541 2.42 2.37 D4

2.5.3. Dynamic shear demand
Vehicle impact force, axial force and support reaction force of the RC
components under impact loading have been discussed a lot [15,23].
However, relation between the vehicle impact force and dynamic shear
demand of the RCBP is still not clear. In Fig. 9, it is clear that the dy­
namic shear demand and vehicle impact force synchronously vary
during vehicular collision process, indicating that the increase and
decrease of the dynamic shear demand are completely controlled by
variation of the vehicle impact force. Taking L-M3-V100, M− M10− V80
and H-M30-V60 as instances, it is found that the dynamic shear demand
also increases to the maximum when the vehicle impact force reaches
the peak. Therefore, relation between the peak vehicle impact force and
the peak dynamic shear demand can be plotted in Fig. 10. It should be
highlighted that only the peak shear responses of RCBPs that are not
failed in Table 3 are selected in Fig. 10. The reason lies in that, the peak
dynamic shear demand basically equals to the dynamic shear capacity
when the RCBP fails (see Table 3), and it cannot exceed the dynamic
shear capacity. Additionally, it is observed from Fig. 10 that the peak
dynamic shear demand (Vdsd P
) has a positive linear relation with the peak
P
vehicle collision force (Fveh ), and thereby the peak dynamic shear de­
mand can be expressed:
P
Vdsd P
= 0.69Fveh + 531 (4)
According to the present systematic numerical simulations, it is also
found that the engine impact contributes mostly to the peak vehicle
impact force due to its high stiffness, followed by the cargo. Other parts
of vehicle make little contribution because of their soft characteristic.
Therefore, relation of the predicted peak vehicle impact forces with the
impact impulse of the engine and cargo from three typical vehicles, as
well as the fitted curves are shown in Fig. 11. It can be obtained that,

3146
R.W. Li et al.
Fig. 7. Damage and failure mode of RCBP under medium truck collision (M− M15− V100) (a) bumper impact (15 ms) (b) engine impact (60 ms) (c) cargo impact
(240 ms).
P
Fveh = 1163.1mel v0 − 3588 (Light truck) (5a)
P
Fveh 2
= 14.9(mem v0 + 0.01mc v0 ) +104.2(mem v0 + 0.01mc v0 )
− 1639 (Medium truck)
(5b)
P
Fveh = 3.4(meh
v0 + 0.01mc v0 )2 + 792.2(meh v0 + 0.01mc v0 ) − 15592 (Heavy truck)
(5c)wheremel = 0.34 t, mem =0.87 t andmeh = 1.52 t are the engine mass
of light, medium and heavy trucks, respectively; mc is the cargo mass, i.
e., 3.93 t≤mc ≤ 31.18 t; v0 is the impact velocity of vehicle, i.e., 40–120
km/h. It is clear from Eq. (5) that: (i) impact impulse of the engine and
cargo are both considered in the peak vehicle impact force; (ii) although
coefficient of the cargo impact impulse is relatively small, contribution
of the cargo impact impulse on the peak vehicle impact force cannot be
neglected attributed to its large weight.
Results numerically derived by Do et al. [23,28] and Xu et al. [29]
are used to further verify the Eq. (5), as given in Table 4. In Table 4, W
and D are the cross-sectional width and height of RCBC; v0 is the impact
velocity; m is the total weight of truck; me is the weight of engine. It can
be found that, Eq. (5) can accurately predict the peak vehicular impact
force with considering different weights of engine and cargo, as well as
the collision velocities. It should be noted that the error in case of NC-
S1100-V48-W78 reaches 58%, and the reason lies in that the impacted
3147
Structures 34 (2021) 3141–3154
RCBP in Xu et al. [29] did not fail, while it sustains severe damage in
present numerical simulations.
2.5.4. Dynamic shear capacity
As for the shear crack pattern of the vehicular impacted RCBP
illustrated in Fig. 12, referring to Do et al. [15,26], the dynamic shear
capacity of RCBP can be expressed as Eq. (6). It should be explained that,
attributed to the boundary constraints and the height-diameter ratio of
pier, RCBPs suffer punching shear failure at the base, and thereby the
top side of shear zone is horizontal not along 45 degrees, as seen in
Fig. 12(a).
∑
M
Vdsc = DIFc × Vc + DIFs × Vs + ma (6)
Vc = cotα × ft × b × h0 (7)
where DIFc and DIFs are the dynamic increment factors for concrete and
steel bar strength in the shear section, respectively; Vc and Vs are the
contribution of concrete and transverse bars to the static shear capacity,
respectively; m and a are the mass and acceleration of shear zone,
respectively; α is the angle of shear crack, α = arctan(D/L)), in which L is
the height of impact position, 1200 mm; ft is the cylinder tensile strength
of concrete, 0.079 × fc [9;9]b = 0.88Db = 0.88D; and h0 = 0.80D[9].
Due to using keyword *CONSTRAINED_LAGRANGE_IN_SOLID in this
study, strain of the transverse bars can be considered as the failure strain
R.W. Li et al.
Fig. 8. Damage and failure mode of RCBP under heavy truck collision (H-M50-V110) (a) bumper impact (15 ms) (b) engine impact (70 ms) (c) cargo impact
(220 ms).
of the concrete (εtc ) when RCBP cracking. Hence, Vs can be described as
follow:
2Asv × n 2Asv × n
Vs = fyv × × h0 = Es εtc × × h0 (8)
s s
b × h0 × δ
Asv ≈ (9)
4n
where Es is the Young’s modulus, 2.00 × 105 MPa; Asv is the sectional
area of steel bar; n is the total number of steel legs on the shear surface; δ
is the volumetric stirrup ratio, 5.2‰.
Several previous studied [15,30–32] have shown that transverse bars
provided minor contribution to dynamic shear capacity of the RC
component, which is about 0.05 ~ 0.1 times of the concrete. Moreover,
EI-Tawil et al. [10] pointed out that the structure did not have “time” to
respond to the rapid change in impact loading, i.e., the concrete hardly
transferred stress to the neighboring transverse bars during impact
process. Thereby, the dynamic shear capacity can be estimated by the
Eq. (10) with neglecting the transverse bars contribution. However, it is
highlighted that the transverse bars also can help to recover partial
deformation of the cracking RCBP (see Fig. 9), although the minor
contribution of them to the dynamic shear capacity.
M
Vdsc = DIFc × cotα × ft × b × h0 + a × ρc × (L + HI ) × b × h0 (10)
where ρc is the concrete density, and HI is the height of impact area.
Due to that each concrete and steel element in the shear zone have
different dynamic increment factor and accelerations, a large number of
the dynamic equilibrium equations are needed to obtain these values.
Hence, influences of the dynamic increment factor and inertia force can
be simplified by using a dimensionless coefficient (κ):
3148
Structures 34 (2021) 3141–3154
a × ρc × (L + HI )
M
Vdsc = (DIFc + tanα × ) × ft × b × h0 × cotα (11)
ft
= κ × ft × b × h0 × cotα
Based on the average value of the maximum shear capacity of the
broken RCBPs (Table 3), i.e., 7199 kN, the value of κ is suggested as 3.6,
and the dynamic shear capacity can be described as follow:
0.79fc
M
Vdsc = 3.60 × × b × h0 × cot(arctan(D/L)) = 0.2 × fc × D × L (12)
10
Numerical and experimental results derived by Do et al. [23], Pham
et al. [33] and Zhao et al. [34] are used to further verify the Eq. (12), as
given in Table 5. Comparison results demonstrate that the proposed Eq.
(12) can not only accurately predict the maximum dynamic shear ca­
pacity of RC components, e.g., RC columns and RC beams, but also
consider the influence of different cross-sectional size on the dynamic
shear capacity.
3. Damage level evaluation
3.1. Damage index
It can be drawn from the actual vehicle-RCBP collision accidents and
present numerical analyses that: (i) RCBP commonly suffers shear fail­
ure when subjected to vehicle collision; (ii) the peak dynamic shear
demand caused by the vehicle impact is the dominated factor that de­
termines whether the RCBP fails or not. As a result, the dynamic shear
capacity is critical to evaluate impact resistance of the RCBP. Conse­
quently, a ratio of the peak dynamic shear demand (Vdsd P
) to the dynamic
M
shear capacity Vdsc is suggested as the index (λD ) for damage evaluation
of the RCBP when subjected to vehicle collision:
R.W. Li et al. Structures 34 (2021) 3141–3154

Fig. 9. Dynamic responses and damage of RCBP under vehicle collision (a) L-M3-V100 (b) M− M10− V80 (c) M− M15− V100 (d) H-M30-V60 (e) H-M50-V110.

P
Vdsd
λD = M
(13)
Vdsc

Based on Eqs. (4 ~ 12) and (13), λD is expressed as Eq. (14). The

calculating results of each collision scenario are given in Table 3.

⎧
⎪
⎪ 4536.1(mel v0 ) − 13993.2
⎪
⎪ (Light truck)
⎪
⎪ fc × D × L
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎨ 58.1(m v + 0.01m v )2 + 406.4(m v + 0.01m v ) − 6392.1
(14)
em 0 c 0 em 0 c 0
λD = (Medium truck)
⎪
⎪ fc × D × L
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ 13.3(meh v0 + 0.01mc v0 )2 + 3089.6(meh v0 + 0.01mc v0 ) − 60808.8
⎪
⎪
⎩ (Heavy truck)
fc × D × L

3149
R.W. Li et al. Structures 34 (2021) 3141–3154

3.2. Damage level evaluation

According to the damage index λD given in Table 3, four damage

Fig. 10. Peak shear demand vs. Peak vehicle impact force of RCBP.
levels are characterized for the impacted RCBPs correspondingly as
given in Table 6. It consists of slight, moderate and severe damage, as
well as bridge collapse. Obviously, it is found that the damage level
becomes more severe as λD increases. In details, for the slight damage
level (D1), i.e., when λD is less than 0.4, only slight damage can be
observed on concrete cover in vicinity of the impact location and no
lateral displacement occurs to the RCBP, and RCBP can maintains good
service condition after vehicle collision; when the moderate damage
level occurs (D2), i.e., when λD ranges from 0.4 to 1.0, massive concrete
cracking and small lateral displacement (less than 10 mm) appear on the
RCBP at the impact location; following that, severe damage level (D3)
with λD mainly various from 1.0 to 1.2, diagonal shear cracks occur to
the RCBP and transverse bars fracture with large deformation at the
impact position. Noted that, due to the combined effects of the longi­
tudinal bars in the impacted pier, girder, neighboring pier and the
inertia force, stability of the bridge can be maintained although the

Fig. 11. Peak vehicle impact force vs. Impact impulse of engine and cargo (a) light truck (b) medium truck (c) heavy truck.

Table 4
Comparisons between numerical results conducted by previous studies and Eq. (5).
Truck Reference Case Dimensions Vehicle condition Results(kN) Eq. (5)(kN) Error(%)
W(mm) D(mm) v0(km/h) m(t) me(t)

Mediumtruck Do et al.[23] C1000 1000 1000 100 8 0.64 6592 6406 3

120 8 0.64 9364 9442 8
C1200 1200 1200 90 8 0.64 4596 5064 10
100 8 0.64 8260 6406 22
Xu et al.[29] NC-S1100-V48-W78 1100 1100 48 7.8 0.64 1710 714 58
NC-S1100-V64-W78 1100 1100 64 7.8 0.64 2810 2119 5
NC-S1100-V81-W78 1100 1100 81 7.8 0.64 4130 3933 3
NC-S1100-V97-W78 1100 1100 97 7.8 0.64 5760 5951 10
NC-S1100-V113-W78 1100 1100 113 7.8 0.64 7500 8278 10
Heavy truck Do et al.[28] C10 1200 1200 1000 16 0.64 9010 8035 10

3150
R.W. Li et al. Structures 34 (2021) 3141–3154

Fig. 12. Shear crack pattern of the vehicular impacted RCBP (a) failure mode (b) schematic diagram.

Table 5
Comparisons of the maximum dynamic shear capacity between previous works and Eq. (12).
Reference Case Structural properties Results(kN) Eq. (12)(kN) Error(%) Failure
D (mm) L (mm) fc (MPa)

Do et al. [24] C5 600 600 34.0 8036 6955 13 Shear/Punching shear

C6 800 800 34.0 14,593 12,364 15
C7 1200 1200 34.0 30,000 27,818 7
Pham et al. [33] Beam-1 150 250 46.0 1000 980 2
Beam-2 150 250 52.0 1390 1108 20
Zhao et al. [34] B-868-7.14 200 500 24.8 1480 1409 5
C-868-7.14 200 500 26.3 1735 1494 14
D-868-7.14 200 500 25.0 1679 1420 15

Table 6
Damage evaluation results of RCBP under vehicle collision.
Damagelevel Damagestate Range ofλD Damagedescription Numericalresult Accidents
[2]

D1 Slight damage 0 < λD ⩽0.4 Slight damage occurs on concrete cover at the impact position without lateral
deformation

D2 Moderate 0.4 < λD ⩽1.0 Several cracks form at the impact position with small lateral displacement (less
damage than 10 mm) and limited crushing concrete

D3 Severe damage 1.0 < λD ⩽1.2 Diagonal shear cracks appear and transverse bars fracture at the impact position,
as well as large lateral displacement occur

D4 Bridgecollapse λD > 1.2 RCBP is destroyed with steel bars fracture and excessive lateral displacement
(more than 500 mm), triggering the bridge collapsing

Note: displacement is the maximum lateral displacements of the impacted RCBP at the impact position.

impacted RCBP suffers severe damage and failure; finally, when λD ex­
ceeds 1.2 (D4), the impacted RCBP is destroyed with transverse and
longitudinal bars fracturing, as well as lateral displacement exceeding
500 mm at the impact position. This directly results in the loss of full
bearing capacity of the impacted RCBP, the inclination of the bridge
deck and girders, and even the overall collapse of the bridge.
For the present 54 collision scenarios, Fig. 13 shows the ranges of
vehicle impact velocity and mass corresponding to the different damage
levels, respectively. It can be derived that, as expected, RCBP is much
vulnerable to collision by heavy trucks at high velocity. Besides, the
zone corresponding to D3 is too small, indicating that bridge is prone to
collapse once the RCBP suffers severe shear failure.
4. Performance-based design of double-pier RC bridge
4.1. Impact-resistant performance objectives
It is well-known that the seismic performance objectives have been

3151
R.W. Li et al.
Fig. 13. Damage evaluation (a) evaluation results (b) distribution of damage index (λD ).
developed and utilized for more than two decades [1,2], protecting
building/bridge structures from collapsing under major/mega earth­
quake as far as possible, with reduction in economic cost and casualties.
However, the impact-resistant performance objectives are still lacked for
building/bridge structures from the existing studies and regulations,
resulting in that a number of structural members are easily destroyed
under the intensive impact loading. In this section, according to the
above damage evaluation results and the performance-based seismic
design concept [14], three impact-resistant performance objectives are
developed and described as follows:
(i) First impact-resistant performance objective (P1), i.e., Immediate
Occupied: RCBP does not experience any damage or only suffers
slight damage level (D1) after vehicle collision, the original
strength and stiffness of the impacted RCBP are retained, which
can be directly used without repairing or retrofitting.
(ii) Second impact-resistant performance objective (P2), i.e., Life
Safety: RCBP suffers moderate damage level (D2) after vehicle
collision but still has the enough axial load-bearing capacity to
support the superstructures, which needs to be retrofitted
without closure of bridge traffic.
(iii) Third impact-resistant performance objective (P3), i.e., Collapse
Prevention: RCBP suffers severe damage level (D3) after vehicle
collision but still has a certain axial load-bearing capacity to
prevent superstructure from collapsing, which must be replaced
with closure of bridge traffic.
Besides, this study focuses on the double-pier RC bridge, thereby the
proposed impact-resistant performance objectives are more applicable
to the following conditions:
(i) Vehicle velocity is less than 120 km/h, vehicle mass is less than
50 t and impact height are between 1.2 ~ 1.8 m.
(ii) Cross-sectional diameter of RCBP is less than 1100 mm.
Table 7
Impact-resistant performance objectives of RCBP.
Roadwaycategories Vehicle speed limitation(km/h) Vehicle load limitation(t)
Highway road 60<vslc ≤ 120 m0 ≤ 5
5<m0 ≤ 50
National road 0<vslc ≤ 80 m0 ≤ 20
20<m0 ≤ 30
30<m0 ≤ 50
Urban road 0<vslc ≤ 60 m0 ≤ 20
20<m0 ≤ 50
3152
Structures 34 (2021) 3141–3154
(iii) Layout of bridge piers is double-pier.
4.2. Classification of objectives
Currently, Chinese roadways are mainly divided into three cate­
gories according to the importance levels [35], i.e., highway road (first
level), national road (second level) and urban road (third level). The
corresponding vehicle speed limitations (vslc ) [35] are 60 km/h<vslc ≤
120 km/h, 0<vslc ≤ 80 km/h and 0<vslc ≤ 60 km/h, respectively. Based
on Fig. 13, considering the construction budget control, different
impact-resistant performance objectives are proposed for RCBP on the
different roadway categories, as given in Table 7. It indicates that: (i) for
the highway and national roads, the impact-resistant performance
objective should meet P3 at least, since there is a high risk for RCBP
failure or bridge collapse when a heavy truck travels on these roads at
the high speed. For instance, in the truck collision accident of FM 2110
Bridge over IH-30 in Texarkana [4], bridge suffered overall collapse (D4)
when RCBP was impacted by the heavy vehicle at the speed of 96.7 km/
h. As a result, velocity of the large-tonnage trucks (20 ~ 50 t) must be
strictly controlled below 70 km/h on the highway and national roads to
avoid total collapse of the bridge under accidental vehicle collision; (ii)
for the urban road, the impact-resistant performance objective should
meet P2, since the RCBP can be directly used with slight damage and
without repairing after a heavy truck impact at the speed of 60 km/h.
For example, in the truck collision accident of Chatfield Road Bridge
over IH-45 in Navarro County [4], moderate damage level (D2) occurred
to the RCBP when the vehicle traveled with the velocity of 60 km/h and
mass of 36 t. The above analyses demonstrate that it is reasonable for the
present classification of impact-resistant performance objectives for the
RCBP considering the different importance level. More importantly,
using the proposed damage evaluation approach and objective classifi­
cation can effectively assess the impact resistance of RCBP without
performing the experimental and numerical analyses.
Damagelevel Impact-resistant performanceobjective
D3 P3
D4
D2 P3
D3
D4
D1 P2
D2
R.W. Li et al.
Fig. 14. Performance-based design procedure for RCBP against vehicle collision.
4.3. Performance-based design procedure
A step-by step impact resistance design procedure for double-pier RC
bridge based on the impact-resistant performance objectives can be
summarized as follows and illustrated in Fig. 14.
(i) Based on the importance level of roadway and project budget,
determine the impact-resistant performance objective (Pi) for
RCBP.
(ii) Determine the design parameters of RCBP, such as the diameter
(D) and concrete compressive strength (fc ), to obtain the
maximum dynamic shear capacity (Vdsc M
) of RCBP by Eq. (12).
(iii) Determine the vehicle information, such as engine mass (me ), the
maximum cargo mass (mc ) and velocity (V0 ), to calculate the
P
vehicle peak impact force (Fveh ) and the peak dynamic shear de­
P
mand (Vdsd ) by Eq. (4).
(iv) Calculate the damage index (λD ) by Eq. (14) and determine the
damage level (Di) with Table 4.
(v) Comparing the damage level with the designed impact-resistant
performance objective (Pi), if the damage level meets the re­
quirements, the impact-resistant design is finished, otherwise
RCBP should be redesigned, e.g., enlarging the cross section,
increasing concrete compressive strength or raising the forbidden
condition of vehicle driving speed and mass.
It should be noted that arrangement of the longitudinal and trans­
verse bars should be designed following the seismic code for bridges.
5. Conclusions
Bridge failure due to vehicle collision could lead to a detrimental
influence on traffic operation safety and human lives. Current regula­
tions, e.g., AASHTO-LRFD 6th edition [8], CEN [7] and JTG D60-2015
[9] only adopted the ESF of vehicle impact to design the RCBP but not
consider the performance-based design concept. In this paper, the
performance-based design framework is developed for the typical
double-pier RC bridge by numerical simulations, which can help
3153
Structures 34 (2021) 3141–3154
designers to optimize the design based on the importance level of
roadway and project budget without experimental and numerical ana­
lyses. The main findings in this study are summarized as follows:
(1) Extensive numerical simulations show that the dominated factor
evaluating whether RCBP fails or not under vehicle collision is
the peak dynamic shear demand at the base of the pier. Moreover,
the explicit expression of the peak dynamic shear demand is
developed and verified for the vehicular mass of 3–50 t and
impact velocity of 40–120 km/h.
(2) The dynamic shear capacity of circular RCBP is formulated and
verified, in which the concrete provides the much more contri­
bution than the transverse bars.
(3) The ratio of the peak dynamic shear demand to the dynamic shear
capacity is defined as a new explicit damage index to evaluate
damage level of the impacted RCBP, and damage-performance
correlation of the impacted RCBP is further established.
(4) Three impact-resistant performance objectives are proposed, and
the detailed performance-based design procedure is developed
according to the importance level of roadway.
Although the double-pier bridge is mainly concerned at present, the
proposed performance-based design procedure can be further applied
for other types of bridge pier, e.g., hollow-core pier and concrete filled
steel tubular pier [36,37].
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support from
the National Natural Science Foundation of China (52108474), Natural
Science Basic Research Plan in Shaanxi Province of China (Grant No.
2020JQ-619), and Special project of Science Research Program of
R.W. Li et al.
Education Department of Shaanxi Province of China (Grant No.
20JK0791).
References
[1] Priestley MJN, Seible F, Calvi GM. Seismic design and retrofit of bridges. New York:
Wiley; 1996.
[2] Federation Internationale du Beton. Seismic bridge design and retrofit-structural
solutions. FIB Bull 2007;39.
[3] Wardhana K, Hadipriono FC. Analysis of recent bridge failures in the United States.
J Perform Constr Facil 2003;17(3):144–50.
[4] Buth CE, Brackin MS, Williams WF, Fry GT. Collision loads on bridge piers: Phase
2. Report of guidelines for designing bridge piers and abutments for vehicle
collisions. Rep. No. FHWA/TX-11/9-4973-2. College Station, TX: Texas
Transportation Institute; 2011.
[5] Chen L, Xiao Y. Review of studies on vehicle anti-collision on bridge piers.
J Highway Transp Res Dev 2012;29(8):78–86.
[6] SA/SNZ. Structural design actions Part 1: Permanent, imposed and other actions
Sydney, NSW 2001; Wellington 6020: AS/NZS 1170.1:2002; 2002.
[7] CEN. Actions on structures. Part 1-1: General actions-densities, self-weight,
imposed loads for building. European Committee for Standardization. Brussels,
Belgium: BS EN 1991-1-1:2002; 2002.
[8] AASHTO. AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications (customary U.S. units). 6th
edition., Washington, DC; 2012.
[9] JTG D60-2015. General Code for Design of Highway Bridges and Culverts. Beijing,
Ministry of Transport of the People’s Republic of China; 2015.
[10] El-Tawil Sherif, Severino Edward, Fonseca Priscilla. Vehicle collision with bridge
piers. J Bridge Eng 2005;10(3):345–53.
[11] AASHTO. AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications (customary U.S. units). 2nd
ed., Washington, DC; 1998.
[12] Sharma H, Hurlebaus S, Gardoni P. Performance-based response evaluation of
reinforced concrete columns subject to vehicle impact. Int J Impact Eng 2012;43:
52–62.
[13] Sharma H, Gardoni P, Hurlebaus S. Probabilistic demand model and performance-
based fragility estimates for RC column subject to vehicle collision. Eng Struct
2014;74:86–95.
[14] Auyeung Steven, Alipour Alice, Saini Dikshant. Performance-based design of
bridge piers under vehicle collision. Eng Struct 2019;191:752–65.
[15] Do Tin V, Pham Thong M, Hao Hong. Proposed design procedure for reinforced
concrete bridge columns subjected to vehicle collisions. Struct 2019;22:213–29.
[16] LS-DYNA. Keyword user’s manual. Livermore Software Technology Corporation;
2007.
[17] CJJ 166-2011. Code for seismic design of urban bridges. Beijing, Ministry of
Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China; 2011.
[18] Li RW, Zhou DY, Wu H. Experimental and numerical study on impact resistance of
RC bridge piers under lateral impact loading. Eng Fail Anal 2020;109 104319.
3154
Structures 34 (2021) 3141–3154
[19] Hosseini P, Ghasemi SH, Jalayer M, Nowak AS. Performance-based reliability
analysis of bridge pier subjected to vehicular collision: extremity and failure. Eng
Fail Anal 2019;106 104176.
[20] Sha Yanyan, Hao Hong. Nonlinear finite element analysis of barge collision with a
single bridge pier. Eng Struct 2012;41:63–76.
[21] Sha Yanyan, Hao Hong. Laboratory tests and numerical simulations of barge
impact on circular reinforced concrete piers. Eng Struct 2013;46:593–605.
[22] Demartino C, Wu JG, Xiao Y. Response of shear-deficient reinforced circular RC
columns under lateral impact loading. Int J Impact Eng 2017;109:196–213.
[23] Do TV, Pham TM, Hao H. Impact force profile and failure classification of
reinforced concrete bridge columns against vehicle impact. Eng Struct 2018;183:
443–58.
[24] Malvar L, Crawford J. Dynamic increase factors for steel reinforcing bars. 28th
DDESB Seminar Orlando, USA; 1998.
[25] Symonds PS. Survey of methods of analysis for plastic deformation of structures
under dynamic loading. Division of Engineering. RI: Brown Univ, Providence;
1967.
[26] Li RW, Wu H, Yang QT, Wang DF. Vehicular impact resistance of seismic designed
RC bridge piers. Eng Struct 2020;220:111015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
engstruct.2020.111015.
[27] Chen Lin, El-Tawil Sherif, Xiao Yan. Reduced models for simulating collisions
between trucks and bridge piers. J Bridge Eng 2016;21(6):04016020. https://doi.
org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000810.
[28] Do Tin V, Pham Thong M, Hao Hong. Dynamic responses and failure modes of
bridge columns under vehicle collision. Eng Struct 2018;156:243–59.
[29] Xu Xiaochen, Cao Ran, El-Tawil Sherif, Agrawal Anil Kumar, Wong Waider.
Loading definition and design of bridge piers impacted by medium weight trucks.
J Bridge Eng 2019;24(6):04019042. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-
5592.0001397.
[30] Saatci S. Behavior and modelling of reinforced concrete structures subjected to
impact loads. Ph.D. Univ of Toronto; 2007.
[31] Yi WJ, Zhao DB, Kunnath SK. Simplified approach for assessing shear resistance of
reinforced concrete beams under impact loads. Aci Struct J 2016;113(4):747–56.
[32] Pham Thong M, Hao Hong. Impact behavior of FRP-strengthened RC beams
without stirrups. J Compos Constr 2016;20(4):04016011. https://doi.org/
10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000671.
[33] Pham TM, Hao Y, Hao H. Sensitivity of impact behavior of RC beams to contact
stiffness. Int J Impact Eng 2018;112:155-64.
[34] Zhao De-Bo, Yi Wei-Jian, Kunnath Sashi K. Shear mechanisms in reinforced
concrete beams under impact loading. J Struct Eng 2017;143(9):04017089.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001818.
[35] JTG B01-2014. Technical Standard of Highway Engineering. Beijing, Ministry of
Transport of the People’s Republic of China; 2014.
[36] Cassese Paolino, De Risi Maria Teresa, Verderame Gerardo Mario. A modelling
approach for existing shear-critical RC bridge piers with hollow rectangular cross
section under lateral loads. B Earthq Eng 2019;17(1):237–70.
[37] Cassese P, De Risi MT, Verderame GM. A degrading shear strength model for RC
columns with hollow circular cross-section. In J Civ Eng 2019;17(8):1241–59.